Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
The PEOPLE, etc., respondent, v. Blane NORDAHL, a/k/a David Price, appellant.
Appeal by the defendant from a judgment of the County Court, Dutchess County (Dolan, J.), rendered December 21, 2004, convicting him of burglary in the second degree and burglary in the third degree, upon his plea of guilty, and imposing sentence. The appeal brings up for review the denial, without a hearing, of that branch of the defendant's omnibus motion which was to suppress physical evidence.
ORDERED that the judgment is affirmed.
The defendant argues that the County Court improperly denied his motion to dismiss the indictment on the ground that the prosecution improperly presented to the grand jury modus operandi evidence that failed to meet the admissibility requirements of such evidence as established by People v. Molineux, 168 N.Y. 264, 61 N.E. 286. “[W]here defendant has by his plea admitted commission of the crime with which he was charged, his plea renders irrelevant his contention that the criminal proceedings preliminary to trial were infected with impropriety and error; his conviction rests directly on the sufficiency of his plea, not on the legal or constitutional sufficiency of any proceedings which might have led to his conviction after trial” (People v. Di Raffaele, 55 N.Y.2d 234, 240, 448 N.Y.S.2d 448, 433 N.E.2d 513). Therefore, by pleading guilty, the defendant forfeited judicial review of the alleged defect in the grand jury proceedings (see People v. Hansen, 95 N.Y.2d 227, 715 N.Y.S.2d 369, 738 N.E.2d 773; People v. Gerber, 182 A.D.2d 252, 589 N.Y.S.2d 171; see also People v. Johnson, 299 A.D.2d 368, 369, 749 N.Y.S.2d 161; People v. Morgan, 209 A.D.2d 727, 619 N.Y.S.2d 949; People v. Contestabile, 202 A.D.2d 442, 608 N.Y.S.2d 512).
Further, the defendant had no reasonable expectation of privacy with regard to his property, which was seized and vouchered by federal authorities upon his arrest for violation of parole (see People v. Natal, 75 N.Y.2d 379, 383, 553 N.Y.S.2d 650, 553 N.E.2d 239, cert. denied 498 U.S. 862, 111 S.Ct. 169, 112 L.Ed.2d 134; People v. Perel, 34 N.Y.2d 462, 467-468, 358 N.Y.S.2d 383, 315 N.E.2d 452; People v. Gaffney, 308 A.D.2d 598, 764 N.Y.S.2d 727; People v. Dennis, 223 A.D.2d 814, 815, 636 N.Y.S.2d 453).
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: December 04, 2007
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)